politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The terrible truth about Brexit

Young lawyers are given eclectic reading recommendations. I think the idea is to broaden their minds and to make them more commercially aware. Or perhaps their mentors just think they should read more. Some of the suggested reading, regrettably, includes business management books. The least scientific and most cynical books tend to be most useful in practice. I have often drawn on the early chapters of Parkinson’s Law in meetings. Who Moved My Blackberry is a how-to manual for all too many executives.

"What of a referendum? That is merely a route for choosing between different options Before one is offered, the government had better make sure that the options offered are all available."

This is what so many pro-referendum people are forgetting. We're in this mess because leave were too lazy and too desperate to win to decide what a win would mean. If people want 'remain' on the ballot, they'd better be sure it's available, and the public know the terms before they vote.

Otherwise we'll just be in this mess again - or perhaps even then, if the result is close.

The thing about the deal is that it is only particularly unpopular (other than with those remainers for whom any Brexit would have been unpopular by definition) because the politicians have urged them to think it so. It could have easily been popular if politicians had acted differently.

Regardless of whether they believe the “forecasts” or not, the politicians are gambling with people’s lives and livelihoods in a way they have no right to do. Every single one of them should be thoroughly ashamed. Instead all they care about is who gets the blame.

The force for “no change/disruption” has always been powerful in this country for good reason (It was almost certainly what drove a large portion of the remain vote). Because however justified few believe in the ability of politicians to deliver radical change successfully. Brexit is no different. The deal offers a way out/a get out that they don’t really deserve. And yet having been offered that olive branch they all want to plough on regardless and continue gambling. To continue with the analogy it’s as if they’ve backed something with a stake they can’t afford to lose but have been given an opportunity to lay off at a small loss. But they’re compulsive gamblers so they don’t.

It’s not though their money (they think) that they’re gambling with. Which makes it all the more shameful.

> Does the EU really want a member state with such a large disaffected grouping? Really?

Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.

> Does the EU really want a member state with such a large disaffected grouping? Really?

Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.

Those narked of voters do elect members to the European Parliament, so not entirely internal.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

> Does the EU really want a member state with such a large disaffected grouping? Really?

Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.

Those narked of voters do elect members to the European Parliament, so not entirely internal.

Sure, but they're used to them. It's a minority, and they don't really elect any more MEPs by being more narked off. (OK, maybe a little bit because angry people have higher turnout, but it's not a huge difference.)

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

When the LotO is Corbyn, you're relieved if he's only being mindless instead of malicious.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

So what are the likes of Mogg’s and Redwood’s investment companies advising their clients in the event of a no deal Brexit...? Presumably something very different from the BOE...

Mogg is an utter arse - attacking Carney for doing something which he is required by law to do.

I am extremely suspicious of financial experts, including Carney, who seem to be exaggerating the potentially adverse economic effects of Brexit by focussing on the UK's total GDP. What matters to the man in the street is GDP per capita, for which the total GDP needs to be divided by the country's population. The harder the Brexit, the fewer people will be able to live in or move to the UK from the EU, and the greater the number of EU citizens who will return to their home countries. Therefore the UK population would be smaller due to Brexit, and so GDP per capita is likely to be much less affected by Brexit. Carney and others are being disingenuous by not basing their analyses on GDP per capita.

> Does the EU really want a member state with such a large disaffected grouping? Really?

Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.

Euroscpeticism and Europhobia is not a uniquely British thing, but we are the ones who have mot poisoned their project. We're querulous, unfriendly partners who are holding back the project.

It's easy to see why the EU might decide we're more trouble than we're worth, and how continued membership might even imperil the organisation.

The onyl way around this would be a stonking win for remain. Which we are not going to get.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

In life you should never ask a yes/no question, if you simply cannot handle one response.

So what are the likes of Mogg’s and Redwood’s investment companies advising their clients in the event of a no deal Brexit...? Presumably something very different from the BOE...

Mogg is an utter arse - attacking Carney for doing something which he is required by law to do.

I am extremely suspicious of financial experts, including Carney, who seem to be exaggerating the potentially adverse economic effects of Brexit by focussing on the UK's total GDP. What matters to the man in the street is GDP per capita, for which the total GDP needs to be divided by the country's population. The harder the Brexit, the fewer people will be able to live in or move to the UK from the EU, and the greater the number of EU citizens who would return to their home countries. Therefore the UK population would be smaller due to Brexit, and so GDP per capita is likely to be much less affected by Brexit. Carney and others are being disingenuous by not basing their analyses on GDP per capita.

Whatever your feelings about Carney, Mogg is an utter arse for being so dammed rude about Carney. His comments were unnecessarily unpleasant, and the actions of someone with lack of breeding... his breeding being something I think Mogg is proud of.

> Does the EU really want a member state with such a large disaffected grouping? Really?

Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.

Euroscpeticism and Europhobia is not a uniquely British thing, but we are the ones who have mot poisoned their project. We're querulous, unfriendly partners who are holding back the project.

It's easy to see why the EU might decide we're more trouble than we're worth, and how continued membership might even imperil the organisation.

The onyl way around this would be a stonking win for remain. Which we are not going to get.

There are several countries that are causing worse problems than Britain. Greece and Italy on one dimension, Hungary and Poland on another, Ireland and Denmark on a third.

Always wanting to hold up integration steps is a PITA, but the recent treaties have defused most of the possible denial-of-service vectors with QMV and Enhanced Cooperation.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

In life you should never ask a yes/no question, if you simply cannot handle one response.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

In life you should never ask a yes/no question, if you simply cannot handle one response.

The question needed asking.

The problem was less the answer than how very close it was. That gave diehard Remainers hope it could be overturned, especially since poor polling made them think it was all about the campaign and a late switch.

It's a false hope that shows no understanding of how much people loathe the EU for a wide variety of reasons, but it's proving even more poisonous than the campaign itself.

> Does the EU really want a member state with such a large disaffected grouping? Really?

Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.

Euroscpeticism and Europhobia is not a uniquely British thing, but we are the ones who have mot poisoned their project. We're querulous, unfriendly partners who are holding back the project.

It's easy to see why the EU might decide we're more trouble than we're worth, and how continued membership might even imperil the organisation.

The onyl way around this would be a stonking win for remain. Which we are not going to get.

There are several countries that are causing worse problems than Britain. Greece and Italy on one dimension, Hungary and Poland on another, Ireland and Denmark on a third.

Always wanting to hold up integration steps is a PITA, but the recent treaties have defused most of the possible denial-of-service vectors with QMV and Enhanced Cooperation.

Different problems, and not necessarily worse. But that reinforces my point: Brexit is taking a lot of their attention off things they need to be doing. A UK that remains, and continues being a stroppy teenager (as we have been for two decades or more), will continue to distract and irritate.

You are right that there are good reasons they might want us to remain. I just think there are other good (and weightier) reasons they'll want to say au revoir if we don't have a stonking majority for remain.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

Yes, the ERG and Ukip, who spent decades advocating Brexit, had no plan. On that, we agree. However, David Cameron should have insisted on a clear Brexit position for the referendum, and established an official enquiry or commission to establish one, with representation from prominent leavers. It would not then have been Remain defining Leave, but Farage and JRM and Bill Cash and whoever else who'd sit on the commission. This is what Australia did, for instance, for its referendum on the monarchy.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

In life you should never ask a yes/no question, if you simply cannot handle one response.

The question needed asking.

The problem was less the answer than how very close it was. That gave diehard Remainers hope it could be overturned, especially since poor polling made them think it was all about the campaign and a late switch.

It's a false hope that shows no understanding of how much people loathe the EU for a wide variety of reasons, but it's proving even more poisonous than the campaign itself.

A good point, but it was both. And the diehard remainers have a point.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

Yes, the ERG and Ukip, who spent decades advocating Brexit, had no plan. On that, we agree. However, David Cameron should have insisted on a clear Brexit position for the referendum, and established an official enquiry or commission to establish one, with representation from prominent leavers. It would not then have been Remain defining Leave, but Farage and JRM and Bill Cash and whoever else who'd sit on the commission. This is what Australia did, for instance, for its referendum on the monarchy.

Useless since they could have proposed something the EU would immediately reject, and I doubt they would have played ball by discussing it.

Different problems, and not necessarily worse. But that reinforces my point: Brexit is taking a lot of their attention off things they need to be doing. A UK that remains, and continues being a stroppy teenager (as we have been for two decades or more), will continue to distract and irritate.

You are right that there are good reasons they might want us to remain. I just think there are other good (and weightier) reasons they'll want to say au revoir if we don't have a stonking majority for remain.

The attention-sucking effect of Brexit is nowhere near over. If Brexit goes ahead there's at least another two years coming of ongoing passive-aggressive psycho-drama, followed by a Swiss-style eternity of little deals and renegotiations. If you want to minimize distraction and irritation, it's far easier to keep everyone in the same decision-making structure.

If you could actually physically *move* the UK so it was no longer near the EU and no longer had a land border with an EU member then you might be onto something, but this would be extremely expensive, and attract opposition from the RSPB.

Yes, the ERG and Ukip, who spent decades advocating Brexit, had no plan. On that, we agree. However, David Cameron should have insisted on a clear Brexit position for the referendum, and established an official enquiry or commission to establish one, with representation from prominent leavers. It would not then have been Remain defining Leave, but Farage and JRM and Bill Cash and whoever else who'd sit on the commission. This is what Australia did, for instance, for its referendum on the monarchy.

That wouldn't have worked, and it would just have given leave something to fight against: look at the way the asshats denigrated 'experts', and the commission would have been 'experts'.

In addition, the likes of Farage wouldn't have sat on such a commission unless they could utterly control it, lest it come up with an answer they didn't like and their presence legitimised that answer. Better for them to be outside and able to freely criticise.

And to be fair, Brexit is far more complex than a referendum on the monarchy.

People are making the mistake of thinking that leave didn't want to win. They wanted to win, and would have reacted to *anything* anyone remotely remainy said or did (including the government) in a way that would best bring them victory.

I'd go as far as to say, if Cameron had done such a commission, leave would have won by more, and the Brexit we'd be heading for would not be whatever the commission came up with.

The thing about the deal is that it is only particularly unpopular (other than with those remainers for whom any Brexit would have been unpopular by definition) because the politicians have urged them to think it so. It could have easily been popular if politicians had acted differently.

Regardless of whether they believe the “forecasts” or not, the politicians are gambling with people’s lives and livelihoods in a way they have no right to do. Every single one of them should be thoroughly ashamed. Instead all they care about is who gets the blame.

The force for “no change/disruption” has always been powerful in this country for good reason (It was almost certainly what drove a large portion of the remain vote). Because however justified few believe in the ability of politicians to deliver radical change successfully. Brexit is no different. The deal offers a way out/a get out that they don’t really deserve. And yet having been offered that olive branch they all want to plough on regardless and continue gambling. To continue with the analogy it’s as if they’ve backed something with a stake they can’t afford to lose but have been given an opportunity to lay off at a small loss. But they’re compulsive gamblers so they don’t.

It’s not though their money (they think) that they’re gambling with. Which makes it all the more shameful.

That its the Conservatives here who have abandoned their USP - of actually being conservative - and are trying to thrust radical change upon the country is striking, and won't do them any favours.

Actually I think Remain will be easier than the lead suggests; intrinsically it represents a win and gives the EU what it wants. It's principal concern is likely to be that we won't repreat the whole fiasco in a few years time; the way things are going the public appetite for that would be close to nil.

Different problems, and not necessarily worse. But that reinforces my point: Brexit is taking a lot of their attention off things they need to be doing. A UK that remains, and continues being a stroppy teenager (as we have been for two decades or more), will continue to distract and irritate.

You are right that there are good reasons they might want us to remain. I just think there are other good (and weightier) reasons they'll want to say au revoir if we don't have a stonking majority for remain.

The attention-sucking effect of Brexit is nowhere near over. If Brexit goes ahead there's at least another two years coming of ongoing passive-aggressive psycho-drama, followed by a Swiss-style eternity of little deals and renegotiations. If you want to minimize distraction and irritation, it's far easier to keep everyone in the same decision-making structure.

If you could actually physically *move* the UK so it was no longer near the EU and no longer had a land border with an EU member then you might be onto something, but this would be extremely expensive, and attract opposition from the RSPB.

At least two years of drama if they cut us adrift now. Continued membership means many more years of drama, and us probably leaving in the long run anyway.

The problem is the publics' opinion on the EU in the UK. Unless that changes, continued membership is probably pointless.

Surely Remain has a clear policy; stay in the EU, preferably, but not essentially on the terms that we were in before. Simples!

The ordinary Leavers I know had an idea sold to them that we could 'just Leave' and everything would be as it was before we joined; after all we traded with France, Germany and so on before, and we traded with Australia and so so. I think there's a hazy, and probably justified idea, idea, too, that we 'let down' the Aussies and the Kiwis when we joined back in 1973, and they'd want the relationship back, but nowadays, from what I can see, they seem to be doing OK, and aren't particularly bothered about 'then'. Like meeting your ex after 20 years and thinking it had been a mistake, but the ex has moved on very happily, thank you.

Anyway, being in the EU isn't a bar to trading outside it. Members of my family work in companies which happily sell (mostly) British kit to all sorts of people all over the world.

The problem was less the answer than how very close it was. That gave diehard Remainers hope it could be overturned, especially since poor polling made them think it was all about the campaign and a late switch.

It's a false hope that shows no understanding of how much people loathe the EU for a wide variety of reasons, but it's proving even more poisonous than the campaign itself.

I think that is a perceptive point.

Both many remainers and many leavers have failed to account for it.

The same is true of the May-haters. May is reviled by a number of posters in terms just as hateful and misogynistic as Tennesse Williams’ description of Blanche Dubois.

But, the UKs negotiating position was always terribly weak, even more so as the 52:48 split was not even uniform across the UK (Scotland).

Noone could have negotiated a great deal with only 52 % of the country behind them. And, if we end up remaining, Remainers will have a similar problem.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

No - having the referendum should have been conditional on having a Leave proposition to put to the public. Of course he shouldn't have written it himself; once a formal Leave campaign had been formed and recognised by the electoral commission, they should have been required to produce a proposal. With any luck they would still have been arguing about it.

That wouldn't have worked, and it would just have given leave something to fight against: look at the way the asshats denigrated 'experts', and the commission would have been 'experts'.

In addition, the likes of Farage wouldn't have sat on such a commission unless they could utterly control it, lest it come up with an answer they didn't like and their presence legitimised that answer. Better for them to be outside and able to freely criticise.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, that is what Cameron should have done.

Offer a referendum, once the Leavers presented a written manifesto. They would still be squabbling like rats and we would still be members of the EU with the referendum still a distant prize for the malcontents.

Do law firm partners really recommend business management books? The more bsd corporate partners perhap, not the brighter ones. I’d recommend Richard Susskind for living proof of the theory that some shit will stick if you throw enough. The lesson for trainees from Susskind is always look to the future and if you make enough predictions and shout loudly enough then some of them will be correct. There may be an analogy to politics there.

> Does the EU really want a member state with such a large disaffected grouping? Really?

Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.

Euroscpeticism and Europhobia is not a uniquely British thing, but we are the ones who have mot poisoned their project. We're querulous, unfriendly partners who are holding back the project.

It's easy to see why the EU might decide we're more trouble than we're worth, and how continued membership might even imperil the organisation.

The onyl way around this would be a stonking win for remain. Which we are not going to get.

Surely Remain has a clear policy; stay in the EU, preferably, but not essentially on the terms that we were in before. Simples!

The ordinary Leavers I know had an idea sold to them that we could 'just Leave' and everything would be as it was before we joined; after all we traded with France, Germany and so on before, and we traded with Australia and so so. I think there's a hazy, and probably justified idea, idea, too, that we 'let down' the Aussies and the Kiwis when we joined back in 1973, and they'd want the relationship back, but nowadays, from what I can see, they seem to be doing OK, and aren't particularly bothered about 'then'. Like meeting your ex after 20 years and thinking it had been a mistake, but the ex has moved on very happily, thank you.

Anyway, being in the EU isn't a bar to trading outside it. Members of my family work in companies which happily sell (mostly) British kit to all sorts of people all over the world.

They were also sold an idea where decisions were made in the UK, not in Brussels. I think that one was more important than trade, if you look at the polling.

> Does the EU really want a member state with such a large disaffected grouping? Really?

Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.

Euroscpeticism and Europhobia is not a uniquely British thing, but we are the ones who have mot poisoned their project. We're querulous, unfriendly partners who are holding back the project.

It's easy to see why the EU might decide we're more trouble than we're worth, and how continued membership might even imperil the organisation.

The onyl way around this would be a stonking win for remain. Which we are not going to get.

Yet Jacob and his ergonauts are doing their best to bring it about.

Indeed. (And I love 'ergonauts' !)

That's why i think it's as much about the non-entities trying to get themselves in the public eye than it is about the UK's position in Europe.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

In life you should never ask a yes/no question, if you simply cannot handle one response.

The question needed asking.

The problem was less the answer than how very close it was. That gave diehard Remainers hope it could be overturned, especially since poor polling made them think it was all about the campaign and a late switch.

It's a false hope that shows no understanding of how much people loathe the EU for a wide variety of reasons, but it's proving even more poisonous than the campaign itself.

So what are the likes of Mogg’s and Redwood’s investment companies advising their clients in the event of a no deal Brexit...? Presumably something very different from the BOE...

Mogg is an utter arse - attacking Carney for doing something which he is required by law to do.

I am extremely suspicious of financial experts, including Carney, who seem to be exaggerating the potentially adverse economic effects of Brexit by focussing on the UK's total GDP. What matters to the man in the street is GDP per capita, for which the total GDP needs to be divided by the country's population. The harder the Brexit, the fewer people will be able to live in or move to the UK from the EU, and the greater the number of EU citizens who would return to their home countries. Therefore the UK population would be smaller due to Brexit, and so GDP per capita is likely to be much less affected by Brexit. Carney and others are being disingenuous by not basing their analyses on GDP per capita.

Whatever your feelings about Carney, Mogg is an utter arse for being so dammed rude about Carney. His comments were unnecessarily unpleasant, and the actions of someone with lack of breeding... his breeding being something I think Mogg is proud of.

He always was unpleasant. He is lashing out now as he knows that everyone can see his star falling.

That wouldn't have worked, and it would just have given leave something to fight against: look at the way the asshats denigrated 'experts', and the commission would have been 'experts'.

In addition, the likes of Farage wouldn't have sat on such a commission unless they could utterly control it, lest it come up with an answer they didn't like and their presence legitimised that answer. Better for them to be outside and able to freely criticise.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, that is what Cameron should have done.

Offer a referendum, once the Leavers presented a written manifesto. They would still be squabbling like rats and we would still be members of the EU with the referendum still a distant prize for the malcontents.

But leavers would have realised that would have been the outcome, and fought against it being done that way.

Surely Remain has a clear policy; stay in the EU, preferably, but not essentially on the terms that we were in before. Simples!

The ordinary Leavers I know had an idea sold to them that we could 'just Leave' and everything would be as it was before we joined; after all we traded with France, Germany and so on before, and we traded with Australia and so so. I think there's a hazy, and probably justified idea, idea, too, that we 'let down' the Aussies and the Kiwis when we joined back in 1973, and they'd want the relationship back, but nowadays, from what I can see, they seem to be doing OK, and aren't particularly bothered about 'then'. Like meeting your ex after 20 years and thinking it had been a mistake, but the ex has moved on very happily, thank you.

Anyway, being in the EU isn't a bar to trading outside it. Members of my family work in companies which happily sell (mostly) British kit to all sorts of people all over the world.

Brexitism has always had that nostalgic memory of Empire and WW2 about it. Just yesterday we had a PB thread full of it. Delusional of course.

Surely Remain has a clear policy; stay in the EU, preferably, but not essentially on the terms that we were in before. Simples!

The ordinary Leavers I know had an idea sold to them that we could 'just Leave' and everything would be as it was before we joined; after all we traded with France, Germany and so on before, and we traded with Australia and so so. I think there's a hazy, and probably justified idea, idea, too, that we 'let down' the Aussies and the Kiwis when we joined back in 1973, and they'd want the relationship back, but nowadays, from what I can see, they seem to be doing OK, and aren't particularly bothered about 'then'. Like meeting your ex after 20 years and thinking it had been a mistake, but the ex has moved on very happily, thank you.

Anyway, being in the EU isn't a bar to trading outside it. Members of my family work in companies which happily sell (mostly) British kit to all sorts of people all over the world.

They were also sold an idea where decisions were made in the UK, not in Brussels. I think that one was more important than trade, if you look at the polling.

I wrote that that was the view of 'ordinary Leavers I know', but I agree that the idea was put about, especially by sections of the media that "Brussels' was some undemocratic group which wanted to 'control' us Brits. No, the EU doesn't yet have a proper democracy, but if one thinks about, neither does this country.

Surely Remain has a clear policy; stay in the EU, preferably, but not essentially on the terms that we were in before. Simples!

The ordinary Leavers I know had an idea sold to them that we could 'just Leave' and everything would be as it was before we joined; after all we traded with France, Germany and so on before, and we traded with Australia and so so. I think there's a hazy, and probably justified idea, idea, too, that we 'let down' the Aussies and the Kiwis when we joined back in 1973, and they'd want the relationship back, but nowadays, from what I can see, they seem to be doing OK, and aren't particularly bothered about 'then'. Like meeting your ex after 20 years and thinking it had been a mistake, but the ex has moved on very happily, thank you.

Anyway, being in the EU isn't a bar to trading outside it. Members of my family work in companies which happily sell (mostly) British kit to all sorts of people all over the world.

They were also sold an idea where decisions were made in the UK, not in Brussels. I think that one was more important than trade, if you look at the polling.

I wrote that that was the view of 'ordinary Leavers I know', but I agree that the idea was put about, especially by sections of the media that "Brussels' was some undemocratic group which wanted to 'control' us Brits. No, the EU doesn't yet have a proper democracy, but if one thinks about, neither does this country.

Possibly not, but we can get rid of governments in this country if they really screw up. Admittedly that argument has less force when a Corbyn or a Duncan Smith is the alternative but it's always there.

When the European Commission acts with borderline criminality, which under Juncker it does - how does it get removed?

It's a false hope that shows no understanding of how much people loathe the EU for a wide variety of reasons, but it's proving even more poisonous than the campaign itself.

Except some of the people who voted Leave don't hate the EU, they hate other things they blame the EU for (right or wrong)

Without the EU to blame, that venom will be directed internally on UK politicians.

A Brexit that doesn't deliver for Hartlepool, Great Yarmouth and Port Talbot seems on the cards. Instead it looks like another lost decade of austerity for them. I struggle to find much sympathy.

Indeed, and when the people of those towns realise they have been taken for fools by the monies class who are profiteering from their misery (like the various screaming Brexiteers with investments elsewhere...) the result will not be good for British society and British politics.

People keep banging on about the betrayal of Brexit voters if we don't leave. Have they considered the betrayal to these voters if we crash out? It's fine for daodao to talk about GDP per capita, but does that argument did the practical logistical and legal issues of us crashing out? We're sorry Brexit voters in Hartlepool that you lost your job and have seen food availability reduced and prices spike, but because foreigners have been able to leave you are less worse off per capita than you would have been.

It's a false hope that shows no understanding of how much people loathe the EU for a wide variety of reasons, but it's proving even more poisonous than the campaign itself.

Except some of the people who voted Leave don't hate the EU, they hate other things they blame the EU for (right or wrong)

On the other hand there are those of us who despise the EU but voted remain because we disliked the Leave campaign even more. The things I voted remain to prevent have already happened now: if there is another referendum I’ll probably switch my vote.

The attention-sucking effect of Brexit is nowhere near over. If Brexit goes ahead there's at least another two years coming of ongoing passive-aggressive psycho-drama, followed by a Swiss-style eternity of little deals and renegotiations. If you want to minimize distraction and irritation, it's far easier to keep everyone in the same decision-making structure.

The country is sliding into a broad spectrum culture war of which Brexit is the central but not the only thwart.

I don't a fucking clue where we go form here but it probably involves a radical restructuring of the social and political orders.

The attention-sucking effect of Brexit is nowhere near over. If Brexit goes ahead there's at least another two years coming of ongoing passive-aggressive psycho-drama, followed by a Swiss-style eternity of little deals and renegotiations. If you want to minimize distraction and irritation, it's far easier to keep everyone in the same decision-making structure.

The country is sliding into a broad spectrum culture war of which Brexit is the central but not the only thwart.

I don't a fucking clue where we go form here but it probably involves a radical restructuring of the social and political orders.

We do seem to be replacing the traditional British class divide with a political arrangement closer to the American model where the wealthy and the white poor take on the educated middle classes, ethnic minorities and organised labour.

So what are the likes of Mogg’s and Redwood’s investment companies advising their clients in the event of a no deal Brexit...? Presumably something very different from the BOE...

Mogg is an utter arse - attacking Carney for doing something which he is required by law to do.

I am extremely suspicious of financial experts, including Carney, who seem to be exaggerating the potentially adverse economic effects of Brexit by focussing on the UK's total GDP. What matters to the man in the street is GDP per capita, for which the total GDP needs to be divided by the country's population. The harder the Brexit, the fewer people will be able to live in or move to the UK from the EU, and the greater the number of EU citizens who will return to their home countries. Therefore the UK population would be smaller due to Brexit, and so GDP per capita is likely to be much less affected by Brexit. Carney and others are being disingenuous by not basing their analyses on GDP per capita.

You are entitled to form your own views.

What is quite wrong is to criticise a public official for doing what he is mandated by law to do. For an MP to do so is a mark of utter irresponsibility.

Can I first say as a litigator who is heading off to court in an hour that I don't really recognise the somewhat colourful wall of treacle analogy. Court cases do reach a conclusion for good or ill. Frequently, I would say normally, the parties reach a conclusion themselves based on their assessment of the risks but that process would not occur in many cases without the ultimate threat of third party determination.

So far as Brexit is concerned there is once again a complete failure of any sense of proportion and all my subsequent comments should be seen in that light. We are talking about tenths of a percent on growth. People used to say that using decimal points showed that economists had a sense of humour but I am not sure who is laughing now.

Mogg is increasingly looking like a complete fool as opposed to simply a twat. His attacks on Carney yesterday were ridiculous but that does not make the BoE forecasts correct or credible. As usual Matt's response was much better.

The effects of leaving the EU on whatever terms will be relatively modest and overwhelmed by far more important developments in both domestic policy and world trade. If we leave without a deal there will be more short term disruption and, possibly, a reduction in investment for a period. Whether that would be offset in the medium term by greater freedom of movement is hard to say. As examples the level playing field part of the WA is intended to stop us from being ultra aggressive on tax policy, state support, domestic preference in tendering, etc. Many of those are good things but if we leave with no deal all bets are off and we can do what we like.

If we leave with May's deal that disruption will be largely eliminated but at the cost of us having made future commitments which will tie our hands in the next, more important, round of negotiations. I think that trade off is worth it and we should take the deal but there is plenty of room for disagreement about that.

If we remain I foresee us paying a heavy price. Our democracy will have been severely damaged. We may in many respects have been asked a damn fool question but we gave our answer. I do agree with Alastair that the EU would extract a price for agreeing to any revocation of the Article 50 and it may well be significant. We would suffer humiliation as a nation which I fear would do far, far more damage than the trivial costs of leaving. Having lived through the crisis of confidence that this country endured in the 1970's I have no desire to see any repeat.

I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.

FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.

But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.

On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.

Every time I hear a northern Irish politician on the media, I find myself wondering why we want to keep it.

Selmayr is alleged to have said, in what even by his standards would be a batshit crazy comment, that the UK should be punished for Brexit by being forced to give up Northern Ireland.

Leaving aside the total lack of understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland itself that such a remark would reveal, it's odd that he considers the loss of a war torn, impoverished and controversial area of the UK and a resulting £10 billion annual boost to the Treasury would be a 'punishment.'

It would however punish the EU quite nastily by unleashing a further round of the Troubles - which would be ironic given one of the most ridiculed planks of the Remain campaign was a claim our leaving the EU could lead to war!

So what are the likes of Mogg’s and Redwood’s investment companies advising their clients in the event of a no deal Brexit...? Presumably something very different from the BOE...

Mogg is an utter arse - attacking Carney for doing something which he is required by law to do.

I am extremely suspicious of financial experts, including Carney, who seem to be exaggerating the potentially adverse economic effects of Brexit by focussing on the UK's total GDP. What matters to the man in the street is GDP per capita, for which the total GDP needs to be divided by the country's population. The harder the Brexit, the fewer people will be able to live in or move to the UK from the EU, and the greater the number of EU citizens who would return to their home countries. Therefore the UK population would be smaller due to Brexit, and so GDP per capita is likely to be much less affected by Brexit. Carney and others are being disingenuous by not basing their analyses on GDP per capita.

Whatever your feelings about Carney, Mogg is an utter arse for being so dammed rude about Carney. His comments were unnecessarily unpleasant, and the actions of someone with lack of breeding... his breeding being something I think Mogg is proud of.

I don't have any personal view about Mogg or Carney as individuals, but am keen to make the point that what Carney has always said about Brexit is highly misleading as he doesn't refer to wealth or GDP per capita, which is what matters to individuals.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

Of all the criticisms of Cameron, this is the most stupid. It wasn't his job to set the leave position: his job was to set the position for remain. This he did, in the form of his renegotiation.

Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.

Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.

And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.

No - having the referendum should have been conditional on having a Leave proposition to put to the public. Of course he shouldn't have written it himself; once a formal Leave campaign had been formed and recognised by the electoral commission, they should have been required to produce a proposal. With any luck they would still have been arguing about it.

How could that have possibly worked? The future relationship relies on negotiations with the EU (unless No Deal was the proposal) and they would have either refused to deal in hypotheticals or offered something so bad it wouldn’t have been believed in order to encourage a remain vote.

Can I first say as a litigator who is heading off to court in an hour that I don't really recognise the somewhat colourful wall of treacle analogy. Court cases do reach a conclusion for good or ill. Frequently, I would say normally, the parties reach a conclusion themselves based on their assessment of the risks but that process would not occur in many cases without the ultimate threat of third party determination.

So far as Brexit is concerned there is once again a complete failure of any sense of proportion and all my subsequent comments should be seen in that light. We are talking about tenths of a percent on growth. People used to say that using decimal points showed that economists had a sense of humour but I am not sure who is laughing now.

Mogg is increasingly looking like a complete fool as opposed to simply a twat. His attacks on Carney yesterday were ridiculous but that does not make the BoE forecasts correct or credible. As usual Matt's response was much better.

The effects of leaving the EU on whatever terms will be relatively modest and overwhelmed by far more important developments in both domestic policy and world trade. If we leave without a deal there will be more short term disruption and, possibly, a reduction in investment for a period. Whether that would be offset in the medium term by greater freedom of movement is hard to say. As examples the level playing field part of the WA is intended to stop us from being ultra aggressive on tax policy, state support, domestic preference in tendering, etc. Many of those are good things but if we leave with no deal all bets are off and we can do what we like...

The likely consequences of no deal will be a recession, and civil war in the Tory party, which I think your comments imply will be running the show when you say 'we can do what we like'.

Are you entirely sanguine about the same applying to a Corbyn government ?

Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.

If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?

I think that depends on who the 100 extra MPs were. The indications at the time was that they would have included a fair few wild eyed Brexiteers.

But she wouldn’t have needed the DUP. The cynic in me thinks that means there wouldn’t have been any suggestion of a Northern Irish back-stop so the whole thing would have been much easier to negotiate...

Can I first say as a litigator who is heading off to court in an hour that I don't really recognise the somewhat colourful wall of treacle analogy. Court cases do reach a conclusion for good or ill. Frequently, I would say normally, the parties reach a conclusion themselves based on their assessment of the risks but that process would not occur in many cases without the ultimate threat of third party determination.

So far as Brexit is concerned there is once again a complete failure of any sense of proportion and all my subsequent comments should be seen in that light. We are talking about tenths of a percent on growth. People used to say that using decimal points showed that economists had a sense of humour but I am not sure who is laughing now.

Mogg is increasingly looking like a complete fool as opposed to simply a twat. His attacks on Carney yesterday were ridiculous but that does not make the BoE forecasts correct or credible. As usual Matt's response was much better.

The effects of leaving the EU on whatever terms will be relatively modest and overwhelmed by far more important developments in both domestic policy and world trade. If we leave without a deal there will be more short term disruption and, possibly, a reduction in investment for a period. Whether that would be offset in the medium term by greater freedom of movement is hard to say. As examples the level playing field part of the WA is intended to stop us from being ultra aggressive on tax policy, state support, domestic preference in tendering, etc. Many of those are good things but if we leave with no deal all bets are off and we can do what we like...

The likely consequences of no deal will be a recession, and civil war in the Tory party, which I think your comments imply will be running the show when you say 'we can do what we like'.

Are you entirely sanguine about the same applying to a Corbyn government ?

Electing a Corbyn government untrammeled by any EU regulation would be an option open to us. In my view the economic consequences of such a mistake would show how trivial the effects of Brexit are but that is the peoples' choice.

Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.

Interesting story, and good news. But if anything, the reason to click on the link is the awesomely beautiful photo:

Can I first say as a litigator who is heading off to court in an hour that I don't really recognise the somewhat colourful wall of treacle analogy. Court cases do reach a conclusion for good or ill. Frequently, I would say normally, the parties reach a conclusion themselves based on their assessment of the risks but that process would not occur in many cases without the ultimate threat of third party determination.

So far as Brexit is concerned there is once again a complete failure of any sense of proportion and all my subsequent comments should be seen in that light. We are talking about tenths of a percent on growth. People used to say that using decimal points showed that economists had a sense of humour but I am not sure who is laughing now.

Mogg is increasingly looking like a complete fool as opposed to simply a twat. His attacks on Carney yesterday were ridiculous but that does not make the BoE forecasts correct or credible. As usual Matt's response was much better.

The effects of leaving the EU on whatever terms will be relatively modest and overwhelmed by far more important developments in both domestic policy and world trade. If we leave without a deal there will be more short term disruption and, possibly, a reduction in investment for a period. Whether that would be offset in the medium term by greater freedom of movement is hard to say. As examples the level playing field part of the WA is intended to stop us from being ultra aggressive on tax policy, state support, domestic preference in tendering, etc. Many of those are good things but if we leave with no deal all bets are off and we can do what we like...

The likely consequences of no deal will be a recession, and civil war in the Tory party, which I think your comments imply will be running the show when you say 'we can do what we like'.

Are you entirely sanguine about the same applying to a Corbyn government ?

Electing a Corbyn government untrammeled by any EU regulation would be an option open to us. In my view the economic consequences of such a mistake would show how trivial the effects of Brexit are but that is the peoples' choice.

If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?

I think that depends on who the 100 extra MPs were. The indications at the time was that they would have included a fair few wild eyed Brexiteers.

But she wouldn’t have needed the DUP. The cynic in me thinks that means there wouldn’t have been any suggestion of a Northern Irish back-stop so the whole thing would have been much easier to negotiate...

It's pretty hard to argue against the proposition that life is always harder if you have to deal with the DUP but they are not the party who was demanding a backstop. That was the EU on behalf of Eire. We should have told them to get lost of course.

Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.

Can I first say as a litigator who is heading off to court in an hour that I don't really recognise the somewhat colourful wall of treacle analogy. Court cases do reach a conclusion for good or ill. Frequently, I would say normally, the parties reach a conclusion themselves based on their assessment of the risks but that process would not occur in many cases without the ultimate threat of third party determination.

So far as Brexit is concerned there is once again a complete failure of any sense of proportion and all my subsequent comments should be seen in that light. We are talking about tenths of a percent on growth. People used to say that using decimal points showed that economists had a sense of humour but I am not sure who is laughing now.

Mogg is increasingly looking like a complete fool as opposed to simply a twat. His attacks on Carney yesterday were ridiculous but that does not make the BoE forecasts correct or credible. As usual Matt's response was much better.

The effects of leaving the EU on whatever terms will be relatively modest and overwhelmed by far more important developments in both domestic policy and world trade. If we leave without a deal there will be more short term disruption and, possibly, a reduction in investment for a period. Whether that would be offset in the medium term by greater freedom of movement is hard to say. As examples the level playing field part of the WA is intended to stop us from being ultra aggressive on tax policy, state support, domestic preference in tendering, etc. Many of those are good things but if we leave with no deal all bets are off and we can do what we like...

The likely consequences of no deal will be a recession, and civil war in the Tory party, which I think your comments imply will be running the show when you say 'we can do what we like'.

Are you entirely sanguine about the same applying to a Corbyn government ?

In the event of No Deal Brexit, I think it extremely unlikely that we would become Singapore in the Atlantic. Much more likely would be Argentina without the weather.

It is quite possible that we would shift to net emmigration, but I suspect that would only accelerate the decline in GDP per Capita, because it would be the above average earners with the wherewithal to move abroad.

@AlastairMeeks is right, and there is no good oitcome, but the least bad is a #peoplesvote vote for Remain, with May's Vassal state probably second best option. I am glad to have my assets deployed to mitigate against No Deal though, and the ultimate in safe job with gold plated pension.

Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.

Interesting story, and good news. But if anything, the reason to click on the link is the awesomely beautiful photo:

Possibly not, but we can get rid of governments in this country if they really screw up. Admittedly that argument has less force when a Corbyn or a Duncan Smith is the alternative but it's always there.

When the European Commission acts with borderline criminality, which under Juncker it does - how does it get removed?

I'm not sure what you suspect Juncker of but the Commission is held accountable by the European Parliament. This isn't academic - they caused the resignation of the Santer Commission over corruption allegations.

If the Commission President is generally a bit rubbish but not actively corrupt, their next term depends on them being reselected as spitzenkandidat by their group then that group winning the elections.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

I noted this the other day

In behaving like glorified case workers this consumes time that would be better spent thinking big picture stuff

And the media makes life very unpleasant so a lot of good people no longer participate in the public sphere

Can I first say as a litigator who is heading off to court in an hour that I don't really recognise the somewhat colourful wall of treacle analogy. Court cases do reach a conclusion for good or ill. Frequently, I would say normally, the parties reach a conclusion themselves based on their assessment of the risks but that process would not occur in many cases without the ultimate threat of third party determination.

So far as Brexit is concerned there is once again a complete failure of any sense of proportion and all my subsequent comments should be seen in that light. We are talking about tenths of a percent on growth. People used to say that using decimal points showed that economists had a sense of humour but I am not sure who is laughing now.

Mogg is increasingly looking like a complete fool as opposed to simply a twat. His attacks on Carney yesterday were ridiculous but that does not make the BoE forecasts correct or credible. As usual Matt's response was much better.

The effects of leaving the EU on whatever terms will be relatively modest and overwhelmed by far more important developments in both domestic policy and world trade. If we leave without a deal there will be more short term disruption and, possibly, a reduction in investment for a period. Whether that would be offset in the medium term by greater freedom of movement is hard to say. As examples the level playing field part of the WA is intended to stop us from being ultra aggressive on tax policy, state support, domestic preference in tendering, etc. Many of those are good things but if we leave with no deal all bets are off and we can do what we like...

The likely consequences of no deal will be a recession, and civil war in the Tory party, which I think your comments imply will be running the show when you say 'we can do what we like'.

Are you entirely sanguine about the same applying to a Corbyn government ?

Electing a Corbyn government untrammeled by any EU regulation would be an option open to us. In my view the economic consequences of such a mistake would show how trivial the effects of Brexit are but that is the peoples' choice.

And a no deal Brexit would make that outcome quite likely.

It is certainly a major reason for me supporting May's deeply flawed deal, yes.

The most important thing to bear in mind about "May's deal" is that it is simply the Withdrawal Agreement, where the UK and the EU settle the accounts, sort out rights for settled citizens and make sure Ireland doesn't get badly impacted. They also agree a two year standstill extension. It's not a bad agreement as far as it does, but it isn't a Brexit deal as such. The hard stuff is still to come over the years ahead and is wide open.

I think there are two practical options for the future relationship: EU membership and a very close do as you are told relationship based on the Single Market, Customs Union and a shared approach to third country relationships. Canada was always a near impossible negotiation and the Irish backstop probably kills it entirely.

Both arrangements likely will need to be lubricated with cash. Why not? Brexit was always going to be extremely costly. The Brexit Dividend is just another Leaver lie.

Pete North is irritating, abusive and worst of all actively campaigned to leave the EU. Frustratingly though, he is very well informed. This thread covers some areas I am very familiar with and know to be accurate.

Humphries on R4 finally clarifying that the BoE “forecasts” aren’t actually “forecasts” but “scenarios” for stress testing the banks - Carney “it’s not a forecast but what could go wrong if everything went wrong in a worst case scenario- not “the most likely scenario”. So if the banks are ready for the “worst case scenario” banks will be prepared for whatever happens.

But leavers would have realised that would have been the outcome, and fought against it being done that way.

The uncertainty - the Schrodinger's Brexit - is what won it for them.

Indeed, but they wouldn't have had any way round it.

Cameron at the despatch box. "I will call the referendum as soon as you produce the document"

"We don't want to" wouldn't cut it...

It would have been produced and, if produced by a commission, would probably have been the lightest of light Brexits, e.g. EEA. Then the other side - the Faragists throw-out-the-furriner xenophobic shits - would have argued that it was all a stitch-up, that the document was not 'true' leave.

They'd use this to argue against the document being the basis of the campaign.

And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.

We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.

Then there is the question, as mentioned below, about whether the EU would support whatever the document said. Again, you'd have thought that leavers would have spent the decades they's be screaming about the EU talking to them about any potential divorce.

So what are the likes of Mogg’s and Redwood’s investment companies advising their clients in the event of a no deal Brexit...? Presumably something very different from the BOE...

Mogg is an utter arse - attacking Carney for doing something which he is required by law to do.

I am extremely suspicious of financial experts, including Carney, who seem to be exaggerating the potentially adverse economic effects of Brexit by focussing on the UK's total GDP. What matters to the man in the street is GDP per capita, for which the total GDP needs to be divided by the country's population. The harder the Brexit, the fewer people will be able to live in or move to the UK from the EU, and the greater the number of EU citizens who will return to their home countries. Therefore the UK population would be smaller due to Brexit, and so GDP per capita is likely to be much less affected by Brexit. Carney and others are being disingenuous by not basing their analyses on GDP per capita.

So your idea of a successful Brexit is one where Britain is a less oleasant place to live. Jebus.

Humphries on R4 finally clarifying that the BoE “forecasts” aren’t actually “forecasts” but “scenarios” for stress testing the banks - Carney “it’s not a forecast but what could go wrong if everything went wrong in a worst case scenario- not “the most likely scenario”. So if the banks are ready for the “worst case scenario” banks will be prepared for whatever happens.

I thought we did this a month ago. I can't believe that we are going through this again. Do remainers really want to have as little credibility as the ERG? How can they expect to have their concerns taken seriously if they persist with this dishonesty?

If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?

I think that depends on who the 100 extra MPs were. The indications at the time was that they would have included a fair few wild eyed Brexiteers.

But she wouldn’t have needed the DUP. The cynic in me thinks that means there wouldn’t have been any suggestion of a Northern Irish back-stop so the whole thing would have been much easier to negotiate...

It's pretty hard to argue against the proposition that life is always harder if you have to deal with the DUP but they are not the party who was demanding a backstop. That was the EU on behalf of Eire. We should have told them to get lost of course.

And do what instead? The only option would have been No Deal, which any sensible person knows isn’t an option.

Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.

Interesting story, and good news. But if anything, the reason to click on the link is the awesomely beautiful photo:

Humphries on R4 finally clarifying that the BoE “forecasts” aren’t actually “forecasts” but “scenarios” for stress testing the banks - Carney “it’s not a forecast but what could go wrong if everything went wrong in a worst case scenario- not “the most likely scenario”. So if the banks are ready for the “worst case scenario” banks will be prepared for whatever happens.

I thought we did this a month ago. I can't believe that we are going through this again. Do remainers really want to have as little credibility as the ERG? How can they expect to have their concerns taken seriously if they persist with this dishonesty?

Remainers would have to try pretty hard to lose as much credibility as the average hardcore leaver has.

Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.

Interesting story, and good news. But if anything, the reason to click on the link is the awesomely beautiful photo:

What I find hard to believe about what Carney said yesterday isn't so much the scenarios, but what the Bank says it will do should they come to pass. He said that they'd put up interest rates to something like 5.5% to help keep inflation in check following a devaluation of the currency. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they'd do that - just look what happened in 2016: Leave won, the pound fell and the Bank cut interest rates. I wouldn't be surprised if printed money to help prop up the housing market.

Alastair explains very well why the £39 billion is not something we can bargain with.

What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.

It is not just the Brexiteers. Neither Cameron nor May, both Remainers, troubled to establish what Brexit would mean before launching the referendum and triggering Article 50. And as AM's OP reminds us, there is no Remain or Renegotiate consensus either. It is like our entire political class has given up on serious analysis in favour of mindless slogans.

When the LotO is Corbyn, you're relieved if he's only being mindless instead of malicious.

Humphries on R4 finally clarifying that the BoE “forecasts” aren’t actually “forecasts” but “scenarios” for stress testing the banks - Carney “it’s not a forecast but what could go wrong if everything went wrong in a worst case scenario- not “the most likely scenario”. So if the banks are ready for the “worst case scenario” banks will be prepared for whatever happens.

I thought we did this a month ago. I can't believe that we are going through this again. Do remainers really want to have as little credibility as the ERG? How can they expect to have their concerns taken seriously if they persist with this dishonesty?

What dishonesty? The BoE clearly said they were scenarios, not forecasts. If right wing newspapers deliberately conflate the two and then claim its “Project Hysteria” that’s not the Bank’s fault.

Listening to Mark Carney begs the question;'Why are we allowing the tail to wag the dog'.

This country has become a farce. The interesting parts which are ALL Remain should hive themselves off and leave the crap areas to organise themselves as they wish. We could start with London declaring UDI. A Monaco in the heart of England.

I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.

FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.

But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.

On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.

The McDonnell plan does seem like the only sane and viable option at the moment.

If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?

I think that depends on who the 100 extra MPs were. The indications at the time was that they would have included a fair few wild eyed Brexiteers.

But she wouldn’t have needed the DUP. The cynic in me thinks that means there wouldn’t have been any suggestion of a Northern Irish back-stop so the whole thing would have been much easier to negotiate...

It's pretty hard to argue against the proposition that life is always harder if you have to deal with the DUP but they are not the party who was demanding a backstop. That was the EU on behalf of Eire. We should have told them to get lost of course.

And do what instead? The only option would have been No Deal, which any sensible person knows isn’t an option.

We are leaving the EU as the UK. That means that we will have a land border with the EU in NI as well as sea borders in Calais/Dover and the channel tunnel etc. There is absolutely no reason why one of these borders should be treated any differently from the others and May should never have accepted that it should be. But that mistake was made a year ago and is past praying for at the moment. All we can hope is that our ultimate trade deal with the EU makes it irrelevant.

Miss Vance, Simon Jack (believe that's the right name) was on the BBC last night and did make that specific point, which was good.

However, it's a weaselly way of trying to make a series of statements that you know will be reported as predictions but saying they aren't, so if they don't happen you can pretend you weren't predicting anything.

I do ruminate on a range of potential bets when I put together pre-race blogs. But I always nail my colours to the mast with at least one race tip. What Carney seemed to be doing was browsing Ladbrokes, picking out this bet and that one, saying none of them are tips, just that they might come off.

[Been reading through my 2018 ramblings for some post- and inter-season writing. Surprised I forgot I tipped Perez each way for the Azerbaijan win at 326 and he came third, thus one place off a 108 winner, and two places off a 326 winner. Humbug].